Yeah I realised that was a bad example as I was writing it but I just carried on. But with your first example, again, in their minds “trespassing” means they don’t fit my qualifier of “done nothing to you”. I stress - their logic The police thing is indefensible and it is crazy it took so long for one to finally be convicted
I moved to N.J. In 1999 and then into Manhattan in 2002. Church us a massive part of the WASP community and even bigger (if that’s possible) in the southern Baptist states. I’m not a fan of religion in any way, I think it causes so much trouble, but I have no issues with anyone believing in whatever they wish, but it should never be allowed to stop people rights to a peaceful way of life. I’ve had so many arguments with these stupid “Pro Life” people there who feel that a collection of cells with little or no sentient feeling should have the same rights as a full grown child. Of course, if the child grows up poor, abused, gay or disabled, then they abdicate responsibility……….
True - good point. But just because someone comes on to your land by mistake (happened to a couple of Danish friends of mine in Colorado) doesn’t mean you can shoot at them (luckily he missed) ……. I just find SO many (especially republican voting) Americans as being totally two-faced and incredibly racist, homophobic and not nice people. Yet they dare call themselves Christians. It’s amazing …..
I've mentioned on here before that I am a Catholic Atheist. I don't believe in god, but follow the culture of being a Catholic, that was indoctrinated into me from birth to about 18 when I finally left Catholic schools. To be fair, I could say I am a Christian Atheist as basically I follow most of the '10 commandments' but surely that is just being a decent human: I am the Lord your God. You shall not have strange gods before me. You shall not make to thyself any graven thing; nor the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. You shall not adore them nor serve them. ^^don't follow that. Total BS IMO, but each to their own. This is the one commandment that divides humans and creates separate religions. You could though reword it to: There is no Lord or God. You shall not have strange gods. You shall not make to thyself any graven thing; nor the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. You shall not adore them nor serve anything. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. ^^don't follow that. Don't have a 'Lord", but good practice to not take anyone in vain. Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day. ^^ don't keep it holy, but take at least one day to myself for myself a week Honor your father and your mother. ^^Yep You shall not kill. ^^ Yep You shall not commit adultery. ^^ Yep You shall not steal. ^^ Yep You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. ^^ Yep You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. ^^ Yep (have you met my neighbours ) You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods. ^^ Yep So all in all, you can be an Atheist and be a good human. You don't need a divisive religion to live a happy life. To come back on the topic discussed, there are grey areas I suppose around abortion in the above - is it killing or is it giving a woman a choice? From an Atheist stance, if life isn't provided by a god then it is a choice. Down to when does life begin - when the baby pops out, when it is conceived or when it is in the womb. I don't have the answer and we won't all agree on it at all, but a dangerous thing to let the state decide. And off my soap box
That's not a bad post, Os, until the facepalm of a last line. Are you suggesting that it's not an issue, and that it's being stirred up? Because from where I'm sitting, it's very much an issue for every female that I know. So the Russell Brand style nonsense about how it's all a big cover up for something else is quite frankly wrong and another lazy trope from the Le Tissier handbook of nonsense.
I’m suggesting that it’s a nuanced and delicate subject which is being injected with anger & hate by entities that want the population to be full of anger and hate. It’s the best way to explain how it’s such a big deal in the USA, and not anywhere else. People get told what to be angry about and that anger follows.
I actually think this is fairly good logic. If you see a newborn fetus as a human (which it is) then destroying it is technically murder. I don’t need to be religious to understand the point that they are making. I think it’s quite hard to argue against. This is why it’s such a horrible discussion. As someone who has a daughter that was the result of an unplanned pregnancy (as it turned out was best thing that has ever happened to me) I can say with experience how difficult the topic is to discuss. We could easily have gone down the abortion route. Personally I’m glad we didn’t - but I’m sure many others would have regrets about keeping a baby that they don’t want. I am also glad that we had the choice because parenthood is not something to be taken lightly and the responsibility is huge.
It's a big deal in the USA because this is something that's happening in the USA. And it's also a big deal everywhere else too - which is largely why it's being widely reported internationally and we're talking about it here (despite being a large majority of men here as well).
I'd also note, about the "oversexualized society" thing...abortions have been trending down for decades. Like, the abortion rate is estimated to be lower now than it was when abortion was illegal: https://data.guttmacher.org/states/trend?state=US&topics=65&dataset=data
Nah we are talking about it because the media and whoever leaked the Supreme Court document have decided it’s “the current thing” that they want people to be angry about
Maybe some things are worth being angry about because they are huge ****ing deals in people's lives for **** sakes? Edit: I keep forgetting that he can't read these and I'm just shouting into the void. Even more so than one does when posting normally.
Please do go ahead and tell any woman you know that they're being angry about something like the rights to determine what happens to their bodies, only because they're being told to by 'tHe MeeJA'. Let me know how you get on with that.
I mean we've done this before, but surprise surprise you don't listen and continue to spout frankly offensive bollocks like this. But, again, tell me who in your very strange Le Tissier paradise, is "the media" who decide these things? Do they all get together to chat this through and make decisions as one? "Hey guys - it's Murdoch here. Listen up CNN, I reckon we should all get angry about abortion and the rights of choice for women because reasons. Mainly so that people like Osvaldorama can continue some weird warped fantasy about how these things work. You on for that AP? What about you, Daily Telegraph. Oh great, BBC are signed up too. Anyone else got anything to say? Oh hi Elon, is Twitter up for this as well? Great. Dark Forces UNITE" Because I can tell you, factually, they don't. That's not an opinion. That's not something that's up for debate. Do you not understand the difference between this kind of mad gushing of nonsense and actual reality? Because to me the lines the way you present them are very blurred by your insistence on mixing up what you want to think and reality. There is very little of the "WOOOOAAAAAHHHH THINGS AREN'T WHAT THEY SEEM, SHEEPLE" that actually goes on. Not none. But an awful lot less than you seem to believe, and infinitesimally less than you seem to think within media.
No need to be rude. I think you are naive to believe that there aren’t big money agendas being pushed across media platforms. (For example it’s been factually proven that George Soros has used his money to fund certain media agendas.) I think you fundamentally misunderstand how these nefarious ideas get disseminated. I’m not saying all media is evil and plotting together. It doesn’t work like that. But sincerely it takes very little to form an entire agenda. It would only take a handful of articles to form some opinions and then amplify those opinions across multiple platforms. All it takes is a few articles to form an opinion, and once it becomes newsworthy, a story which was drummed up by a handful of self-serving interests becomes amplified to a global level and then reported by everyone else as news These Supreme Court documents were leaked for a reason. Who by? What was their motive? We are now seeing violence against police officers again in America
I don’t want to tell you how to post Os but could you maybe balance it? Your media point is valid but it veers closer to the swivel eyed loon when you ONLY mention Soros. And not all the right wingers who control media (such as most of the U.K. print media). Murdoch has been mentioned but I can’t remember who that was by. I don’t think it was you (everyone has a red and white avatar - pesky saints forum ) The reaction from both extremes on this has been pretty unhinged. Only one side it focused on For example it took almost no time at all on Twitter to find left wingers advocating for violent revolution over this. Likely the same people who screamed hysterically about January 6th (with good reason I might add) And also very little time to find a trans woman demanding abortion up to the point of birth (I think along with some kind of violence against men) So it was leaked to provoke a reaction. Most likely to try and pressure the court to change it’s mind. But given the absurdity of some of the reactions you can’t rule out someone just wanting to restart up a culture war thing early
There's a seriously false dichotomy here. You can find dumbasses advocating all manner of idiocy. The difference is that no one listens to the ones on the left. There are no significant figures advocating violent revolution, or abortion up to the point of birth. That differs somewhat from their counterparts on the right, where those advocating for insurrection have included, as an example, the former President of the United States, several members of Congress, a whole bunch of people running for office, and several of the most prominent figures in conservative media. TankieSanders or whoever isn't going to be the vanguard of the revolution, they're just trying some irrelevant tryhard attempting to farm some Twitter likes by being extra. Meanwhile their counterparts on the right have literal militias and have pled guilty to seditious conspiracy against the United States and stuff.
The Soros thing was just one example. I am not exclusively saying it’s just left or right wing views. I I imagine it’s whoever has enough money to buy their way into media to form narratives. In this abortion case, maybe this growth in coverage is organic. But to think that this isn’t happening is absolutely naive. But someone has leaked the report, and for a reason.
I was rude through frustration, that you’re still peddling your certainty, when it’s a nonsense. Because you won’t listen. And yet you’ll tell me that it’s me that doesn’t understand how the media works? I’d love to know your credentials in media for you to tell me that. I mean, I’d bet any amount you like that I have a better position to be speaking about this with authority, but that won’t matter to you, because you have zero interest in listening to people who actually know way more about this stuff than you do. You’re also not disagreeing with my opinions. You’re disagreeing with reality. That’s why it’s frustrating. And that’s why it might come across as rude.
